Residential Construction Law

Chapter 8: Inspections in Residential Construction

You can download a PDF version here.

Entries are organised by section number in the book. Abbreviations follow the book’s List of Abbreviations at p xiii and after. Many technical legal terms used here are explained in the Glossary at the back of the book. Links to other websites worked at the time of writing but their continued functionality cannot be guaranteed.

Last updated: September 2025 (release 1); February 2026 (release 2); September 2026 (release 3). Each new version of this Update replaces earlier versions posted at the same URL; text from earlier versions is retained unless out-of-date or no longer accurate. Longer quotes (including lists) are indented, in smaller font.

Book page/section	Update	Release
8.3	(especially for n 26) Anecdotal reports on LinkedIn (July 2025) suggest that even major developers registered with the NHQB, hence subject to the New Homes Quality Code, fail to tell new home buyers in the UK about their right to a pre-completion inspection; and attempt to discourage those who want one from doing so. The 2026 version of the Code makes clear in section [2.8] that the buyer may do the inspection themselves or via a professional representative; but it must include following the NHQB’s own checklist and conditions, the results being recorded. If the inspection reveals a breach of the warranty provider’s technical standards, the developer has up to 30 days to address these (this may be after legal completion). Not entirely consistently, section [2.10] of the 2026 Code now opens: ‘Legal completion (and occupation) can only take place on a complete new home which meets the building regulations and all building safety requirements that apply’. At the point of completion, the developer is newly required under section [2.11] to carry out their own final quality assurance inspection and give the buyer – if necessary – a Schedule of Incomplete Work, with a timescale for completing the work or putting right any defects. (especially for n 31) Warnings on LinkedIn (eg Russell Rafton in December 2025) suggest that some of those offering residential surveys in the UK may be falsely claiming to be RICS-accredited. ‘Surveyor’ is not a legally protected title in the UK (any more than ‘lawyer’ is), so RICS members have no monopoly on either title or functions. Rival institutions can therefore offer membership and competence schemes, for residential surveys in particular: hence in 2025 the Chartered Association of Building Engineers (CABE) opened a new three-tier ‘Residential Surveyor Section’ for members, developed in conjunction with SAVA and the Residential Property Surveyors Association (on the RPSA, see section [8.3] in the book) and including a competency framework. On the New Homes Quality Code, see section [6.7] and its updates above.	1 (September 2025), 2 (February 2026), 3 (September 2026)
8.5	On contributory negligence in buying an existing property, see also the update above to section [5.9.5].	1 (September 2025)
8.6	On English courts’ approach to the standard of proof and to expert evidence, see the update below to section [9.7.2]. (especially for n 51) On expert evidence in construction litigation in E&W, see also section 14 of the TCC Guide 2026.	1 (September 2025), 3 (September 2026)
8.7	For Item 10a in Table 8.5, the Home Report in Scotland, the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2008 (SI 2008/1889) prescribes in art 3 that if the buyer of a house has obtained a copy of a report under the 2006 Act in respect of that house and suffers material loss (as defined), the buyer has a right to damages against the person who prepared the report unless the report meets these criteria: (a) is based on an inspection of the house; (b) has been prepared in a fair and unbiased way; (c) has been prepared with reasonable skill and care. For these criteria in action (the surveyor in the end escaping liability for want of adequately detailed assertions of negligence and proof of the pursuer’s loss), see Comino Properties Ltd v DHKK Ltd [2025] SC EDI 78 (Sheriff O’Carroll). For separate changes to the regime for Energy Performance Certificates (E&W, and Scotland), see the update above to section [4.4.4]. For the related concept of ‘material information’, which the seller of residential property in England & Wales (or their estate agent) may have to assemble and disclose to a potential buyer, see n 282 to section [6.7.6] and its update above. In June 2026, the UK Government published a summary of consultations informing its Home Buying and Selling Reform Roadmap. Most proposals aim to speed up the selling and transferring of title to homes in E&W (notably by digitising more of the process) and to reducing the number of failed transactions: topics outside the scope of this book. Ch 4 looks to increase the minimum level of ‘upfront property information’, before a property is put on sale, notably by requiring a ‘property condition report’ (Scotland-style, though Scotland is nowhere mentioned), as part of a standardised ‘sales pack’. Legislation to implement this is promised ‘by the end of this Parliament’, but guidance to encourage its adoption may come sooner. As with the current Scottish rules, the proposals seem to focus on existing homes for sale, rather than those newly built or newly converted. One enterprising surveying service is encouraging vendors in England & Wales to have their own ‘Home Insight Survey’ ahead of putting their home on the market (Scottish-style). The RICS Home Survey Standard is under review, with a second edition open for consultation in 2025, but the direction and process are contentious among some RICS members, with calls for a rethink on development of the second edition (2026). Market research asked what information respondents would find useful when buying a property: 51% said advice on problems with the property and likely repairs (compared with 49% in the 2019 survey) 44% said energy performance certificates (EPCs) (compared with 35% in the 2019 survey) 43% said a survey completed by the seller, at their expense, would be beneficial (compared with 39% in the 2019 survey. The reactions of respondents who had commissioned a survey, on receiving the report, were: 25% began budgeting for necessary works to the property 23% negotiated the property price based on the survey 21% sought further investigation by different professionals (eg a structural engineer). ‘The Surveyor’s Surveyor’ on LinkedIn (September 2025) suggests that the outcome of a survey should never be to advise the client against a purchase. Instead, the report should set out the risks, recommend further investigations, and highlight the need for detailed quotations for remedial works; a realistic refurbishment budget; and a substantial contingency. ‘It’s then for the client to weigh up whether the project is feasible for them’. For a case in which a home inspection company was liable to the purchasers of a house in Canberra for around A$1.1 million in damages (successful pathways including ACL s 18 and the consumer guarantees under ACL ss 60-61) stemming from a failure to carry out the inspection in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4349.3:2010): Shannon & Anor v Residential Reports Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 66	1 (September 2025), 2 (February 2026), 3 (September 2026)